Insanity Defense: Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity (Ngri)
“Not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI) has often perplexed even the most stringent of legal and psychiatric professionals for centuries. Moreover, it has transcended into the pop culture, as a “loophole”for the criminal society. However, the insanity defense is only used in less than 1% of criminal cases, and used successfully in only 10-25% of those cases (Torry and Billick, 2010). In order to successfully be acquitted by reason of insanity, the legal team, paired with psychiatric professionals, must prove that the defendant is not legally responsible for the crime, despite the evidence that they executed the crime. They must also prove that the defendant, was or is currently suffering from a mental disorder, and that the defendant have/had a impaired logical control of their actions (Smith, 2011). According to Torry and Billick (2010), “A criminal act must have two components: evil intent (mens rea, literally “guilt mind”) and action (actus reus, literally “guilty act”)” (p.225), thus the defendant must prove that he/she did not have “mens rea” or “actus reus.” Equally important to note, the act itself must be voluntary and conscious. The the majority of the psychological and judicial court system have a reluctance to hold defendants who lack the capability needed to understand “right from wrong” (Torry and Billick, 2010). It has been proven that over the course of many years, the NGRI have been difficult to apply. During the early 1980’s, many states modernized their NGRI defense and even abolished the defense altogether. Instead of allowing the the “not guilty by reason of insanity” defense, many states have established a verdict of “guilty but mentally ill” (GBMI) (Smith, 2011). In order to make sure that individuals who suffer from a mental disorder are properly tried in the court of law, the United States Government should abolish the long standing “Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity” defense and establish the “Guilty but Mentally Ill” verdict nation wide.
The Insanity Defense is considered one of the most controversial defenses in the United States Court System, and due to that fact, the insanity defense is used in only 1% of criminal cases. Of the 1% of criminally insane cases, it is used successfully in only 10-25% of the cases (Torry and Billick, 2010). Effectively, discussing the legal definition for the insanity defense has demonstrated to be difficult to define, partially based on the complexity and contradiction about personal accountability in the criminal court. As a result, many definitions have come about in the American Justice System (Smith, 2012). Regardless of the debatable definitions in the American Justice System, the majority of jurisdictions, along with the US Supreme Court, “seem to accept that legal capacity for criminal responsibility, or moral blameworthiness, in some form, is constitutional mandated as an affirmative defense to criminal liability” (Phillips and Woodman,...
Loading: Checking Spelling0%
The Insanity Defense: Crazy or Not?687 words - 3 pages The article "The Insanity Defense and the Unabomber Trial" by Barbara Sarason of the University of Washington touches on a number of important questions for all members of our society to consider. The insanity defense is used in only approximately one percent of felony cases and succeeds only a rare amount of the time, yet on television and in courtroom...
Against the Insanity Defense. Essay1238 words - 5 pages The insanity defense has been used for decades to justify the crimes of those individuals found to be not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). The use of the insanity defense is one that is surrounded in controversy and continues to be a problem for medical and law professionals across the nation. One major problem with the insanity defense is that insanity is...
The Insanity Defense1170 words - 5 pages Each state, and the District of Columbia, has its own statute outlining the standard for determining whether a defendant is legally insane, therefore not responsible, at the time the crime is committed. “An insanity defense is based on the theory that most people can choose to follow the law; but a few select persons cannot be held accountable because mental disease or disability deprives them of the ability to make a rational / voluntary...
The Insanity Defense2225 words - 9 pages Over the years the standards and requirements for the insanity plea have changed, from strict to lenient back to strict and so on. In some states for example Kansas, Montana, Idaho, and Utah just abolished the ability to plead insanity all together. (Insanity defense among the states ) In other states the requirements vary like in California they use the McNaughton rule which says that to be declared insane, defendants must either not have known...
Andrea Yates and The Evolution of Insanity Defense1919 words - 8 pages The criteria for insanity has changed due to the different criminal cases that people are faced with and there isn’t a fine line between sanity and insanity. From what I have researched, I find that there could be a fine line drawn between sanity and insanity. My criterion for insanity is for a person not to know the difference between right and wrong. My criteria matched well with the M’Naghten Rule which states, “Defendant either did not...
The Insanity Defense Part I When is the insanity plea a reasonable and866 words - 3 pages The Insanity Defense Part IOutlineWhen is the insanity plea a reasonable and ethical tool?Thesis: Although some criminals abuse the insanity plea by invoking it to escape being punished for their crimes, the insanity plea should nevertheless still be allowed for those with a documented record of mental illness.I. Background...
Answers whether the insanity defense has a useful fuinction.1162 words - 5 pages The insanity defense refers to that branch of the concept of insanity, which defines the extent to which those accused of crimes may be relieved of criminal responsibility by virtue of mental disease. The terms of such a defense are to be found in the instructions presented by the trial judge to the jury at the close of a case. These instructions can be drawn from any of several rules used in the determination of mental illness. The final...
This essay argues against the insanity plea. It gives about 5 points/arguments that prove the defense faulty, and tell that it should be abolished from court rooms.1081 words - 4 pages Crimes are committed everyday, by many different people all over the world. Crime is something that seems impossible to defeat, with some crimes more magnificent than others. These crimes are all inexcusable and those people who commit crimes should be punished. The punishment should fit the crime, meaning that, if you do something extreme, like murder someone, you should not be allowed to defend yourself by reasoning of insanity. No crime,...
Essence of Insanity2188 words - 9 pages Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s literary work “The Yellow Wallpaper” expresses a dominating relationship between a husband and a compliant wife and her gradual decent into insanity. The wife, suffering from postpartum depression, is secluded from societal influences in attempts to return her to a healthier state of mind. She is not allowed to write or think in her isolated room and over a course of three months becomes more dysfunctional as she is...
Analysis of Insanity Developed by Cohen and Coffin1094 words - 4 pages The media effects coupled with predisposers, precipitants and facilitators can have dire consequences on their own, but the last subject for mass murderer that demands attention is mental illness. In order to distinguish between the various kinds of mental illness and criminal culpability, this paper will analyze the criteria for ‘insanity’ developed by Cohen and Coffin. The victim is innocent and there is no reasonable way the perpetrator...
Insanity: The Future of Creativity1612 words - 6 pages There are some big events that can leave us traumatized for life. How we deal with the issue is all tied to our mind. In the book, The Catcher in the Rye, Holden is a teenager who has suffered the trauma of losing a brother. Since then, he has been unable to find his place in life. Holden described the aftermath of that day, "I was only thirteen, and they were going to have me psychoanalyzed and all, because I broke all the windows in the...
When James Holmes walked into a crowded theater in Aurora, Colorado, and opened fire, he left in his wake an auditorium marred by more than 240 bullet holes, and moviegoers whose lives were irrevocably changed by the horror, as more than 70 people were injured and 12 more lay dead.
At Holmes's murder trial, prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. His defense attorneys are fighting for their client's life. They are doing this by admitting that Holmes is the one who committed one of the worst mass murders in United States history -- but that he did not know what he was doing at the time of the Aurora shooting and is not guilty by reason of the insanity defense.
While prosecutors are attempting to show the jury the heinousness of the crime through grisly crime scene photos and emotional witness testimony, the defense is trying to suppress this kind of evidence and turn attention away from the human toll, and instead focus on Holmes's state of mind at the time of the shooting.
If they are successful, James Holmes will be found not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to a mental health facility where he will remain until mental health officials determine that he is no longer a danger to the public safety. That could mean he will be, in effect, locked up for life. If the defense attorneys fail, Holmes will be sent to death row.
The insanity defense, which dates back to ancient times, is a controversial defense option. In fact, not all 50 states allow an insanity defense, and several of those that do have rejected "not guilty by reason of insanity" in favor of the less-forgiving "guilty but insane."
It is a difficult concept for a large majority of the general public to understand. After all, for most of us, virtually all murders are "crazy." We do not understand how anyone in his right mind could walk into a movie theater and gun down innocent people, and then booby trap his apartment for maximum carnage. But truth be told, a large percentage of those behind bars for violent crimes and even nonviolent crimes have mental health issues.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that 61 percent of state prison inmates with a current or past violent offense have a mental health problem. Up to 20 percent of all inmates have symptoms of serious mental illness, including 15 percent of state prison inmates exhibiting signs of psychotic disorder.
So, how do we distinguish between run-of-the-mill mental illness and insanity in determining whether a defendant is fully culpable for his or her offense?
This year alone, at least three high-profile trials have used the insanity defense thus far:
- Eddie Routh, the killer of 'American Sniper' Chris Kyle
- James Holmes, the Aurora theater shooter
- Edwin Alemany, accused of kidnapping, robbing and murdering a young woman in Boston
In light of these cases, all just within a few months, it would appear as if the insanity defense is a commonly used defense tactic. However, it is an extremely rare tactic to take in criminal defense.
A study commissioned by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) showed that the insanity defense is raised in only one percent of county court cases. When it is used, it fails three out of four times -- which is obviously a pretty low success rate, especially considering that 90 percent of those who raise the insanity defense have a diagnosed mental illness.
Just ask Eddie Routh how successful the insanity defense is. In February, a jury rejected his claim of PTSD-inflicted insanity in the shooting of Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield at a Texas gun range in 2013. Routh is clearly mentally ill. He was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder prior to the killings; he was taking medication for schizophrenia. Yet, a jury rejected his insanity claim and found him guilty of first degree murder and sentenced him to life in prison without parole.
Remember, the disposition is "not guilty by reason of insanity." It is not "not guilty by reason of mental illness."
While states have used different measures for assessing the legal standard for insanity, most use the M'Naghten test, which asks the jury to consider whether the defendant knew right from wrong at the time of the act. For Routh, a Texas ranger simply asked him after the killings, "You know what you did today is wrong, right?" To which Routh replied, "Yes." That seemingly innocuous exchange was likely the death knell for his defense theory.
So, does the insanity defense ever work?
It worked for Andrea Yates, who drowned her five children in a bathtub while suffering from postpartum psychosis. It worked for John Hinckley, Jr., who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in order to impress actress Jodie Foster -- although his acquittal infuriated the public and led to tighter definitions of insanity under the M'Naghten rule. More recently, it worked for an Oklahoma doctor who killed his son because he was convinced the boy was possessed.
Still, it did not work for Andrew Goldstein, who pushed Kendra Webdale in front of a train in New York. It did not work even though Goldstein was schizophrenic, even though he had been hospitalized 13 times in the year prior to Webdale's death, even though every hospitalization was at his own request and he begged for permanent placement. At his third trial, Goldstein threw in the towel and admitted that he knew it was wrong to push the young woman in front of the train.
It didn't work for Jonathan Schmitz, who used his alleged insanity as a "gay panic defense" after he killed his friend Scott Amedure after Amedure revealed a same-sex crush on Schmitz on the talk show "Jenny Jones."
And it didn't work for Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy, prolific serial killers whose efforts to cover their crimes indicated they knew their actions were wrong.
Under the law of the land, killers are often crazy...just not insane.
Follow Adam Banner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/OKCDefenseLaw